I agree with the line of thinking that Cadets are not an unsafe option for an airline, provided that the systems are in place to ensure all parties (this includes the crew members sitting beside them in the LHS) are trained appropriately.
I also tend to agree with the line of thinking that most LCC's will utilise Cadets as a means of reducing costs. Whether that be by bonding, reduced wages, kickbacks from training organisations etc.
The problem is appropriate training systems and reducing costs in an airline environment rarely coincide.

Currently aided and abetted by the two major unions involved that have both signed off on a 'deal' with management that, whilst a vast improvement on the NZ contracts that made the papers, still falls significantly short of the minimum remuneration required by the Fair Work Act through the Modern Air Pilots Award. There is a view that the 'deal' entered into under the EBA is not consistent with the minimum rate of pay provisions of the FairWork Act and it's transitional provisions legislation.

I have posted previously on this subject and it seems to have conveniently fallen on deaf ears. The point I am making is that if the cost advantage of employing cadets is removed, or reduced substantially then we would see exactly whether management genuinely see the cadets as a better option.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

Has the pendulum already swung? Even while the battle continues to maintain jobs in Australia and prevent outsourcing to cheaper labour markets, Aussie cadets are being hired on low wages and salary sacrificing their type ratings, while their third world counterparts get flight training and type rating fully funded. Perhaps its just a matter of time before the cheap labour isn't on the outside looking to get in, but on the inside looking to get out!

Thanks Icarus2001. I may have "lept" a little too soon. I thought what I believed Mach' was saying was a bit out of character. Sorry MACH082. :uhoh:

Our flight ops management are always banging on about compliance (the regulatory type), and I guess I got a little tunnel visioned!

A37575, looking back I have nothing but sympathy for those rather energetic Captains, young men, who had lost their youth seeing and having to do things that haunted them for the rest of their lives. We understand now of course they suffered war neurosis, some had been POW'S and their frustrations and probably anger were taken out on the next generation of pilots that need not see any action. Most were brilliant pilots, short fuses yes, but if you tried, and succeeded, they were OK, but did not have the patience to be mucked about. Did I take that with me into C and T, certainly not, but then again the discipline was still there when I was training, I enjoyed it, but hated to have to fail, and one I did not fail, the very next day flew into a mountain in PNG and killed all on board including nuns and a six week old baby. That I will take to my grave. I am told now that some cadets actually question your authority or your teaching ability, I sincerely hope that is simply incorrect, because if it is not, I don't even want to think of the consequences.

I wouldn't really use this as a measure for experience. The worst xwind landing I have seen in recent times (my own excluded) would have to be a 767 which resulted in a tail skid strike and go around. We could safely assume there was probably 20,000 hours plus in the front two seats based on the airline concerned. Point is, every one has bad days.

Understand that everyone has a bad day occasionally and that mostly it works out ok.

As SLF, if you ask me if I want a 20,000 combined crew up front when ****e happens or a Captain second guessing a 250 hour Gen Y, then what do you think the answer will be?

ps and I am happy to pay for it because I only get one chance at this game.

If you really want to get scared have a read in the wannabe forum. The amount of people paying upwards of 150k for 200hrs and a 737 or 320 rating then expecting a FO job is amazing. When they don't get a job they then go and buy 500 hrs of line training in a third world country in the hope of then being able to get a reasonable job to pay back the debt not realizing their actions have meant those jobs no longer exist.

Where does this sense of entitlement come from. How can guys who hasn't even done 1hr expect to buy their way into a RHS of a jet. How can the regulators think this is safe?

Can only hope that it doesn't go that bad here but jetstar cadet scheme seems only a precursor to pay to fly.

Agree - as long as the captain does not become incapacitated requiring the cadet to be all on his own. Then you have a serious situation as most cadets get very little manipulative flying. But then captains never become incapacitated apart from a few here and there.:ok:

Joker, you're pointing the finger at the wrong people.

The cadets are just taking opportunitities available to them.

Point the finger at the aviation industry management that is setting these poor young folk up and setting the scene for a low experience flight deck and all the dangers that poses to the innocent travelling public.

Sorry but can't agree.

A 5 second google search for "jetstar cadet scheme" gives you almost a page full of articles about the problems associated with the the Jestar scheme. Including this thread.

A further 10-15 minutes of research and anyone who is interested will become quite aware of how much debt they will be in and how much onestar will 'own' them. Also they will see countless reports from captains about how much they struggle under pressure (which should be expected) and links to the AF447 crash.

If they still decide to go with the scheme, is that the sort of person you want flying your family around? Someone who has knowingly chosen to reduce their future employment prospects, and chosen to be put into dangerous situations they are not ready for and potentially cost lives.

I certainly don't.

The only other person would be someone who has done absolutely no research into the scheme other than the shiny brochure.

Does that sound like someone that should be in charge, potentially alone, of a 180 seat hunk of metal hurtling through the air at 80% the speed of sound?

Doesn't to me.

So, what is the 'fix' then? How will airlines be able to mould pilots into having the capabilities, behaviours and competencies that they are looking for?
Your constructive thoughts?

Bugs:

Wrong question; it's what the community is looking for, not the employer.

Cheap airfares while getting there in one piece. The balance, who knows.

I don't blame the airlines. This is capitalism at work. It is the duty of government and regulators to ensure that passengers are protected. Joe public has no idea if the guy in the LHS has paid his way in. The public assume that the rules are there to keep things safe.

A sucker is born every minute so there will always be a supply of people willing to pay so the airline can exploit this commercial opportunity.

I would not have a problem with the cadet scheme if it were purely to generate pilots and not income. What future can there be for these FO's if the airline is motivated to replace them with a new income source.

Spend more money!

As this ethos is contrary to the LCC model, it's probably not going to happen.:(

A hull loss per year is cheaper. - quote fatman 1989 :yuk:

Well first of all by all reports the 'scheme' cadets (as oppsed to the old QF program) have neither the capability or competency to be what they are meant to be, a back up 'captain' when the situation requires it. All they have is the required behaviour, i.e. "Give us money" and "Fulfil the requirement to have some appropriately documented flesh in the 'other' seat".

As for my constructive thoughts:
Contrary to popular belief there are actually guys in GA who can take their valuable experience and still conform to SOPs etc of the airlines. I'm sure if Virgin opened up recruitment, there would be a hell of a lot of replies, at least some of who would be suitable.

In house training, instead of farming them off to some 3rd party provider where you have little control/input into how they are trained (beyond the standard airline specific things) is almost certainly the best way to go, especially if you insist on using no experience 'cadets' who will likely stuggle.

Proper cadet programs are an excellent source of potential captains. A highly competetive selection process means you are able to get your pick of the bunch. Spending a year or two getting industry experience and then a few years in the back as an SO gaining airline experience without being the first line of defence, means that you end up with a supply of experienced, quailty FO's who have a much better chance of performing under pressure.

The only problem I have with the proper cadet scheme is that they might be lacking in the real, by yourself, command experience that is invaluable (depending on where they do their 'industry experience') which would be a disadvantage.

Safety isn't cheap. Never has been, never will be. Unfortunately Jetstar are the very definition of cheap, and safety really isn't important to them.

Personally I think we are going to go full circle in a few years and after some hull losses 'safe' will become sexy again and people will be willing to pay for it. I would just rather the government pull their finger out and prevent deaths instead of responding to them. But what are the chances of that?

In safety circles they call it 'blood priority'. Until we have blood on the ground (hull loss), don't expect anything to change - as seen by the response to the Senate Inquiry.

'Contrary to popular belief there are actually guys in GA who can take their valuable experience and still conform to SOPs etc of the airlines'

You mean like following stable approach criteria?

Me thinks 'popular belief' is nothing more than Jetstar painting GA as hacks to push their cost cutting agenda.